IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v45y2025i5p522-532.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Linking Patient Perceptions of Shared Decision Making to Satisfaction in Lung Cancer Screening Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Stephanie A. Robinson

    (Center for Health Optimization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, MA, USA
    The Pulmonary Center, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Anna M. Barker

    (Center for Health Optimization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, MA, USA)

  • Gemmae M. Fix

    (Center for Health Optimization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, MA, USA
    Department of Medicine, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Marla L. Clayman

    (Center for Health Optimization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, MA, USA
    Department of Population and Quantitative Health Science, UMass Chan Medical School, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, MA, USA)

  • Abigail N. Herbst

    (Center for Health Optimization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, MA, USA)

  • Julie C. White

    (VA Boston Healthcare System, West Roxbury, MA, USA)

  • Renda Soylemez Wiener

    (The Pulmonary Center, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
    Center for Health Optimization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA)

Abstract

Introduction Lung cancer is especially prevalent among US veterans, and lung cancer mortality can be reduced through lung cancer screening (LCS). LCS guidelines recommend shared decision making (SDM) to help patients weigh the benefits and harms of LCS and make informed, values-based decisions about screening. Yet some question whether SDM affects patient outcomes. This study evaluated US veterans’ perceptions of LCS SDM quality and its relationship with satisfaction in LCS decisions. Methods We administered surveys via mail and phone to veterans in the VA New England Healthcare Network after recent LCS conversations. SDM quality was measured using CollaboRATE, with top scores indicating high quality. Decision satisfaction was assessed using the Satisfaction with Decision scale. Generalized linear models analyzed associations between perceived SDM quality and decision satisfaction, adjusting for demographics, health, and overall care satisfaction. Results Among 1,033 patients who received surveys, 320 responded (31.0%), with 220 recalling the LCS conversation. Among those who answered the CollaboRATE questions, 34.0% (73/215) perceived SDM to be high quality (“top scorers†). Perceived high-quality SDM was significantly associated with greater decision satisfaction compared with lower perceived SDM quality (adjusted mean satisfaction on a 30-point scale = 26.75 v. 24.23; P

Suggested Citation

  • Stephanie A. Robinson & Anna M. Barker & Gemmae M. Fix & Marla L. Clayman & Abigail N. Herbst & Julie C. White & Renda Soylemez Wiener, 2025. "Linking Patient Perceptions of Shared Decision Making to Satisfaction in Lung Cancer Screening Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(5), pages 522-532, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:5:p:522-532
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X251333451
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X251333451
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X251333451?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:5:p:522-532. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.